The MVP debate is ridiculous. If Trout got the Triple Crown and Miggy had Trout's numbers, everyone would say Trout will win the MVP hands down. There should be no debate, the MVP has to go to Cabrera. The fact that people are debating this says a lot.
What does that "fact" say about people?
That they value gold glove defense + base-running along with similar hitting? That they appreciate that since Trout was promoted, the Angels won games at a league-leading pace?
Mike Trout is almost as good of a hitter as Cabrera, but he's also perhaps the best defensive outfielder and best base-runner in the American league.
Why does it make sense to ignore defense and wins, just because one player won three arbitrary statistical categories?
If somebody had randomly decided that the "triple crown" should be runs, stolen bases, and WAR, would that mean Trout deserved the MVP?
Trout had a better all-around year, period. When Trout was in the lineup, the Angels were better than the Tigers, period. To me, those two things suggest that Trout is more deserving of the MVP. He won't win it, but he deserves it.